Of course its possible, but it is much more difficult and expensive to build a wide angle lens than a telephoto, who would buy a $50,000 lens like that. They will make it for you if you guarantee 250 orders.

I rather want an UWA with a normal zoom range (16-35 preferred but I can accept shorter zooms like, let's say 16-28, 14-24) with a fast-but-normal aperture (f/2 - preferred but if isn't possible be it f/2.2 or even f/2.8 ) but with stellar sharpness, no flare and low distortions.

I rather want an UWA with a normal zoom range (16-35 preferred but I can accept shorter zooms like, let's say 16-28, 14-24) with a fast-but-normal aperture (f/2 - preferred but if isn't possible be it f/2.2 or even f/2.8 ) but with stellar sharpness, no flare and low distortions.

And I know that this is possible in a good price range.

Well, what about a 12-35 f/2.8 Ironic mood off: I'll go for the 16-35 by this summer. Saving up. The wait for a rumored 14-24 and the pobable price tag helped me make my descision. So my lens set up will be "complete" again, related to my preferencies. As I am not a birder, the 16-35 will suit any need for landscapes and nightscapes/nightsky. After that, I will probaly start to save up for an overnext update of my current 5D3 (hoping for same MPs and a decent improvement beyond ISO 25k). The 5D3 is an insanely good "jack of all trades", so there might be some improvement potential: I'd be glad with 0.5 to 1 stop in RAW. That would be the high ISO IQ of an 1Dx. Let's hope Canon get their sensor design done for upcoming releases.

why not a 16-35 f/3.5 4.5 like the EF-S 10-22 ?why not a 14-24 2.8 or f/4 ?why not even wider such as 12mm ? its a shame Sigma has one, and neither Canon and Nikon hasn't.

The ef-14mm 2.8 is really a bad lens, it needed more aperture blades and its way too expensive..Thats why many canon users use nikon's 14-24 with an adapter for landscape photography. Cheaper, zoom, and same sharpness or even better i've heard, or a samyang 14mm which is a VERY cheap and VERY sharp and very usable. Best value for money no doubt!

No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built.

While nothing is impossible, it is highly unlikely because the cost of a f/1.8 fixed zoom will be extremely high. The cost will be such that one would be able to buy a complete Nikon D800, the Nikon 14-24 and a couple of other lenses in its stead.

No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built.

While nothing is impossible, it is highly unlikely because the cost of a f/1.8 fixed zoom will be extremely high. The cost will be such that one would be able to buy a complete Nikon D800, the Nikon 14-24 and a couple of other lenses in its stead.

No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built.

While nothing is impossible, it is highly unlikely because the cost of a f/1.8 fixed zoom will be extremely high. The cost will be such that one would be able to buy a complete Nikon D800, the Nikon 14-24 and a couple of other lenses in its stead.

No business will manufacture something which has no buyers!

IMHO, even if Canon does release the 14-24, it will be a f/4 lens.

Will an F/4 lens be a bulb shaped lens? What would the price tag be?

Almost all ultra-ultra wide lenses are bulbous so it is my guess that the bulbous shape is necessary for the extreme FOV that such lenses offer.

Guessing Canon's pricing is about as difficult as shooting a crisp sharp shot of a chickadee in flight with a 5d2 .

Jokes apart, I'd guess it will be quite high, right up there in the range of 2000-2500 for starters before it settles lower.

BTW, while I feel that it should be f/4, I'm not too sure whether any such patent exists ... maybe someone can shed some light on this.

Ellen, J.R.: Even more reason for me to go for the 16-35 ;-) thanks anyway, J.R. and I hope to get a proper pic of the "chickadee" in flight and post it for ya, as I have the 5D3 ;-) As long as it is a black-capped species there is enough contrast to focus on it